I don’t intend to decipher the movie logically. I don’t want to think about what David Fincher is going to tell us through this real murder case that has several movie versions. Who is the murderer? What happened to those confusing doubts? Of course, if you have worked hard to come up with a definite answer, then I want to remind you that the pleasure of getting the answer may be the same as that of Jake Gyllenhaal in the film. He tried his best to find the real murderer, just to watch him. The glasses told himself that this was the murderer. But maybe this is just self-deception with sufficient reason, and those unresolved questions are brought up again at the end of the film and it does not bring us comfort. The style of the whole film is not a typical suspense thriller, it is concise and clear, one by one in chronological order, and there is no blood. Just like the news, the murder happened in a remote place. The protagonist settles down and returns to a stable day, but just in the restatement of the ending statement, a kind of fear strikes. Maybe the event is not over as you think it is. What a superficial rhetoric the French Open is recovering. How many such killers are active in this seemingly quiet society? The most important point is, do people really have the ability to follow the vine and master all the truth?
It’s also worth mentioning that director David is very clever and suitable for shooting crime themes in "Fight Club" or "The Seven Deadly Sins", but he has used such a calm and low-key approach, perhaps a mature performance, but also let Some people who want to be picky have nowhere to start.
View more about Zodiac reviews
